Reply to: Contract review

[pmeswani]

If they say no, get Qdos to negotiate with them for you - the result may still be a "no" from the agency, but at least you've let a professional negotiate with them.

To be honest, the issues raised are relatively minor ones, and ones I am prepared to accept. As far as QDOS are concerned, the general contract and the working practices are a pass. There's just some technical points that they recommend they should amend. The worst case scenario, I would get QDOS to speak to the agency legal team and let them sorted out, but it is unlikely to hamper me in taking the role.

[expat]

You're concluding that on the basis of the review of a single (probably borderline) contract that is trying to navigate legislation that is specifically designed to create FUD? Good luck

Just bear in mind that there are significant consequences from failing to conduct due diligence in the event that a contract is found inside IR35 or, indeed, in the event that a failed review is ignored. Notwithstanding the low risk of being selected for investigation and any selected contract from being found inside if properly represented, it will be a long, stressful, and potentially expensive process if you've failed to conduct the due diligence.

You are quite right, given the assumption that you seem to be making (that I will treat future contracts as outside IR35 and make arrangements with tax consequences accordingly). I should not give the impression that I would be so cavalier.

[TheFaQQer]

If they say no can do, I'll probably accept the contract on the grounds that QDOS have said that the contract was a general pass. I acknowledge that this is not a guarantee that I won't get investigated, but I feel more comfortable accepting the contract based on a professional advice.

If they say no, get Qdos to negotiate with them for you - the result may still be a "no" from the agency, but at least you've let a professional negotiate with them.

[jamesbrown]

I would expect that at some stage, the lawyers will make a decision about how far they fight the case or whether to settle.

That's precisely what will happen, whether you have IPSE+, QDOS or any other legal representation you can get without a contract review. They won't take it beyond a point that makes sense unless there's a broader point of law to clarify.

[TheFaQQer]

Interesting one but would be interested to see how IPSE would feel about someone who had a contract, had been advised they were inside IR35, decided to proceed as if outside anyway and then expected IPSE to bail them out when HMRC came knocking?

Hmmm.....

I can't speak for IPSE but I've asked something similar in the past.

IPSE will handle any tax investigation for you. That's part of the standard or plus membership.

I would expect that at some stage, the lawyers will make a decision about how far they fight the case or whether to settle. Since it's unlikely to be an open and shut case, I'd expect a certain amount of fight before giving in to HMRC.

[jamesbrown]

Interesting one but would be interested to see how IPSE would feel about someone who had a contract, had been advised they were inside IR35, decided to proceed as if outside anyway and then expected IPSE to bail them out when HMRC came knocking?

Hmmm.....

I expect they'd represent you to the best of their ability and get you the best outcome possible, but I can't see them burning money unless there's a point of law to clarify. If the working practices are blatantly inside, there's bugger all they can do about it.

[pmeswani]

Interesting one but would be interested to see how IPSE would feel about someone who had a contract, had been advised they were inside IR35, decided to proceed as if outside anyway and then expected IPSE to bail them out when HMRC came knocking?

Hmmm.....

Not considering a contract review is out of the question for the reason you have highlighted. I pay for my IPSE subs, regardless of whether I am in contract or not. If I am going to be investigated, I will want to make sure that I have my due dillegence.

[pmeswani]

Who is your PI/PL with? If you get it from QDOS you get basic reviews for free.

Do you feel confident enough to spot and avoid the big three?

My insurance is with Randell Dorling, so I won't get the reviews for free from QDOS.

And no, I don't feel confident enough to spot and avoid the big three pointers. I've been out of the game for around 2 years, so I don't want to pretend to know what I am doing.

The contract review has come back and it is a generall pass with some recommended alterations (MOO is being one of the key things), and to be honest without QDOS reviewing it, I would have probably missed it. The agency is reviewing the suggested changes. If they say no can do, I'll probably accept the contract on the grounds that QDOS have said that the contract was a general pass. I acknowledge that this is not a guarantee that I won't get investigated, but I feel more comfortable accepting the contract based on a professional advice.

[jamesbrown]

So I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think I'll be throwing money down the contract review drain again.

You're concluding that on the basis of the review of a single (probably borderline) contract that is trying to navigate legislation that is specifically designed to create FUD? Good luck

Just bear in mind that there are significant consequences from failing to conduct due diligence in the event that a contract is found inside IR35 or, indeed, in the event that a failed review is ignored. Notwithstanding the low risk of being selected for investigation and any selected contract from being found inside if properly represented, it will be a long, stressful, and potentially expensive process if you've failed to conduct the due diligence.

[psychocandy]

In all honesty just save your money and take the role. All this review stuff is utter rubbish. It's just an opinion on the part of the reviewer and the opposition will have a different opinion if indeed it comes to that. Then you have to consider what your stance would be if the review wasn't favourable. Would you really turn down the role, waiting for 'Mr right' to come along, one that ticks all the boxes in the reviewers eyes? If the answer is yes then I'd say you're not cut out for business. In business you have to take risks. If you aren't prepared to then permie-land it is.

My advice is take the role, take out a membership with IPSE so that you are covered for legal fees in the unlikely event you are reviewed by HMRC and if they come knocking on your door, refer them to your army of legal representatives. A few years ago when IPSE was PCG, they had a basic grid of data on their homepage detailing the IR35 cases won vs lost. Can't recall the exact numbers but it was something like 1,300 won vs 4 lost. Even if you are risk-averse, you'd have to fancy your chances with those kind of stats.

As far as the HMRC (and VAT) are concerned, I regard them as ducks. They can stick their bills up their 4rses.

Interesting one but would be interested to see how IPSE would feel about someone who had a contract, had been advised they were inside IR35, decided to proceed as if outside anyway and then expected IPSE to bail them out when HMRC came knocking?

Hmmm.....

[expat]

Last year I had a contract reviewed by a well-known contract reviewer, who said that it was probably inside IR35. I went ahead on that basis, but I found that my 2 contractor colleagues had been told by the same reviewer that they were outside.

We never got to the bottom of this, because my colleagues were understandably reluctant to have their contracts discussed any further, but I could think of two likely reasons for the difference:
1. an IR35 review is a black art and I got a different artist from them.
2. they may have answered some critical questions differently, in good faith.

For example my reviewer was particularly concerned about whether the client company had permanent employees who could do my job. The client was a huge software house, and my personal view is that it would beggar belief to suggest that they did not have employees who could do my job. Not enough of them, maybe, which is why they use contractors; but IMHO the question was about competence; not staffing levels.

However I could imagine other contractors in the same situation reading the question differently and saying no, the client does not have any employees who could do the job; on the grounds that if they did, they wouldn't need contractors.

So I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think I'll be throwing money down the contract review drain again.

[TheFaQQer]

I may have boomed and secured a contract (subject to review). I am going to go through QDOS for the review. I know this is subjective, but which review should I go for and why? I know that I should know the answer, and that it is subjective, but am looking at reasons to justify spending £99 (plus the £50 24 hour return) over the £49 (plust the £50 24 hour return). The contract is not public sector.

** Admin, feel free to move this to General if you feel I deserve the abuse.

I'd pay the more expensive one, get the review done and if it fails get Qdos to negotiate the contract changes with the agency.

[Batcher]

Just review it yourself and make sure one of the three pillars are present. Then make sure your working practices keep you outside IR35. As above, join IPSE+ so the small risk of being investigated is covered.

Boom.

[VillageContractor]

If it's your first contract go for the full review. I doubt you'll be able to spot the tell tale signs. And if you're going to spend the money you might as well get the full one

[northernladuk]

Who is your PI/PL with? If you get it from QDOS you get basic reviews for free.

Do you feel confident enough to spot and avoid the big three?